[CR]Re: Undersquare Frames

(Example: Humor)

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:01:58 -0500
From: <Ritzmon@aol.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Re: Undersquare Frames

Harvey Sachs wrote: What fascinates me is that this is another large frame with greatly undersquare design. My Cinelli SC is 64 cm (c to top) x 57 cm top tube. From this I'm beginning to believe that these designers, back then,(still?) thought that the thin-air breathers were all leg and no torso. Are most "oversize" frames that undersquare?

My experience bears this out. Most of my early bikes (late 60's through early 90's) had top tubes no longer than 58cm. I believe that neither Reynolds nor Columbus made top tubes any longer than this. After years of riding bikes like this with 14cm+ stems and seats kicked all the way back to fit, I was amazed when I got my first bike with a 61 toptube and a "normal" position on the bike. Damn, that bike rides GOOD!

Mark "Long Torso" Ritz
in Arcata CA
with a track bike with a 62.5cm top tube!